Monday, August 31, 2009

“The person that loses their conscience has nothing left worth keeping.” Izaak Walton

In my previous discourse I offered a cursory examination of the Failure of Social Justice – in this post I wish to purvey a theoretical extension and asseverate how one's conscience is itself; a property. Furthermore, any external agent which seeks to preclude the freest expression thereof can be justly classified as theft of property, however abstract. One's conscience is an intimate faculty, its subjugation is the final step in the dissolution of self. For once you fracture this inalienability, collectivist imprisonment becomes a mere formality.

Conscience:

1.

a. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.

b. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience.

c. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.

2.

a. The part of the superego in psychoanalysis that judges the ethical nature of one's actions and thoughts and then transmits such determinations to the ego for consideration.

We can consider the aforementioned as a normative arrangement, the only thing I would like to purvey is a supplemental – that the predicate of conscience is uniquely individual, and that its abdication can only be done in limited fashion; by choice, by coercion, or by deception. The Democratic party and all of its progressive, leftist community organizations are intent on displacing individual conscience with a collective conscience. Through aggressive communal reinforcement and the usage of the false consensus effect, the reconstruction of the individual mind [conscience] becomes easier to manifest and therefore control. Choices which wouldn't have been made with a conscience free in its expression, are now forcefully constricted with a hive mentality.

"The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection. Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is form, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death." Thomas Paine

Let no man or agency determine the course of your conscience, for such an action is most certainly not justice - but an incarceration of the most wicked kind. Social justice is in no way the principle of equity, for forced participation that is wrapped in redistributive ideology bears no reflection to liberty.

"Conscience is the chamber of justice." Origen

Property:

Something owned; a possession.

Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.

The right of ownership; title.

A brief explanation has been given on matters of conscience, let us now discuss in a similar fashion, property. We all know what property is, it is a concrete and perceptible entity that can infer self ownership; but I seek to lightly stress the limits of what we know of the dynamics of property systems. My submission is that our body is our individual property, thus our mind is also our property - of which conscience is a corollary. Nobody can make judgments or lay claim against another's body because no legal authority exists which cites purview over it. Obviously, if one breaks the law my proposition is dissolved; what I am asserting is that we are born free, both in mind and body.

The property of conscience is an impediment to Social Justice's redistributive methodology on the grounds that an individual who thinks for his or herself determines their own outcome – such a derivative action cannot be deemed an overall utility and is thus a perversion against the aggregate. But Social Justice acknowledges that a shift in a liberty paradigm to a collectivist model must be done early, that is why they are entrenched within the academic community. The property theft of conscience will be institutionalized through the medium of intellectual discipline, bear no illusions or disregard their ability to effect a communal change. That would be a perilous omission.

"....the human capacity to live by rational principles that were congruent with the true, tranquil and harmonious nature of our mind and thereby that of the Universe itself...."

In perilous times such as these it becomes necessary to speak from our conscience, do not let our politicians pontificate for us on matters of vital import. Our conscience knows that the redistribution of wealth and services violates the liberties of others, those who advocate this action under the banner of social justice are nothing more than politically backed larcenists. Will you let them steal your property?

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,The Conservative Hideout2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, readsome articles, and post some comments. Thank you

Friday, August 28, 2009

It seems the prodigious Senator Ted Kennedy can manifest political quagmires from beyond the grave. The following post comes from the Cato Institute, an organization I admire. What you will read is a primary example of how politicians care little for the average citizen, the will of the people, and rule of law. To me, the Democratic party is the most dangerous political organization to our Republic.

Lawmakers in the Bay State are rushing to change state law to make sure the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat is filled as soon as possible with a reliable Democratic successor.

Never mind that as recently as 2004 the same state legislature had changed state law to mandate that a vacant Senate seat could only be filled by a special election to be held within five months of the vacancy.

Before then, as in most other states, vacancies were filled by an appointment of the governor, with the seat coming up for a vote at the next federal election. But in 2004, the Democratic legislature changed the law to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, from naming a Republican to replace Democratic Sen. John Kerry if he were to be elected president. Kerry lost to George W. Bush, but the law remained on the books.

That was then; now is now. With Democrats in Washington wanting to maintain their 60-vote caucus in the Senate, a five-month delay to let the people of Massachusetts actually vote on who will replace Kennedy has become an intolerable roadblock to progress. According to a report from Bloomberg News this morning, the Democratically-dominated legislature in Massachusetts is about to change the law back to allow the now-Democratic governor to appoint a successor within a month.

This is a textbook example of how politicians routinely ignore The Rule of Law in pursuit of political aims.

In his book, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek devoted an entire chapter to the importance of the rule of law to a free society. “Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles know as the Rule of Law,” Hayek wrote. He defined the phrase to mean “that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand,” and not subject to be changed arbitrarily depending on circumstances.

The Bloomberg story contained a less scholarly but equally sound critique of what is going on in Massachusetts: “It shows Democrats don’t care about principle,” said Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, a North Reading Republican. “They don’t care about debate. They don’t care about the rules. It really is disgusting.”

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,The Conservative Hideout2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, readsome articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The following blog posting is a submission from the blog, John Stossel's Take. While Mr. Stossel does not appeal to everybody, I'm sure we can at least agree that he makes us think about the world we live in.

A sleepy Montana checkpoint along the Canadian border that sees about three travelers a day will get $15 million under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan. A government priority list ranked the project as marginal, but two powerful Democratic senators (Max Baucus and Jon Tester) persuaded the administration to make it happen.

Despite Obama's promises that the stimulus plan would be transparent and free of politics, the government is handing out $720 million for border upgrades under a process that is both secretive and susceptible to political influence.

So who has to wait for their money while Montana’s “sleepy checkpoint” gets fast-tracked? Places like:

A checkpoint in Laredo, Texas, which serves more than 55,000 travelers and 4,200 trucks a day, is rated among the government's highest priorities but was passed over for stimulus money.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,The Conservative Hideout2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, readsome articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

It is that time again for the Liberty Pen to do another Blog Interview. In this installment we will be interviewing Jordan, the author of the blog, "The Obamination of America." I firmly believe that you will observe this young man's adoration for Liberty and his keen understanding that true individual prosperity can only be facilitated without governmental intrusion. We hope you enjoy this interview, and if in the event you find yourself aligned with the interviewee, we urge you to stop by his blog for a visit.

tLP: To begin, I want to thank you for taking the time to participate in this interview. Let's start by giving our readers some insight into your political orientation.

tOA: I am a conservative at heart that champions the idea of state's rights. Instead of having the federal government run everything, it makes more sense to me to let each state govern themselves. It simplifies the government because everyone knows their place and the government doesn't have to worry about all 50 states.

tLP: Tell us what Liberty means to you and why it is so important to keep.

tOA: Liberty to me means that each person can live their life the way they wish without restrictions from a higher power. When liberty is taken away from us, we in turn lose our freedom to live the way we want. Now more than ever our liberties are being stripped away from us and are being given to a higher power known as the federal government.

tLP: If our current administration could change our Constitution for their benefit, what, in your opinion, would they change and why?

tOA: Our administration would cut states rights out of the constitution if they had the chance. Without states rights, the governor and the people of each state would virtually be pawns of the federal government.

tLP: That was a good answer, and I agree with you. As you know there are people out there who think big government is a good idea, what is your position and why?

tOA: Big government in no way is a good thing. With big government there comes mass amounts of corruption, and with corruption, democracy and freedom ultimately fail.

tLP: What are the perceptions our current political machine have regarding the American public?

tOA: The government obviously views its people as idiots, and rightfully so for the Democratic party. However, the Townhall meetings show the resiliency of the American people to question their government and ask questions regarding what will be implemented on them. What a great way to show who is boss!!

tLP: With all of the heated debates within the arena of health care, where do you think it will end up? Do you think we will end up with some sort of government health care option?

tOA: Taking into account the recent news of Obama dropping the public option, I believe that we will end up just working on the insurance aspect of health care. The costs are just too high and so something has to be done. As far as the quality of health care is concerned, I believe we are fine. To answer the second question, I believe that we won't see government run health care. The people are just too scared of it and most people don't want a politician running their life.

tLP: I am of the position that the government cannot run anything efficiently, much less make a profit. To prove my point I only need to reference our President's statement regarding UPS, Fedex, and the Post Office. He stated that the two private companies are flourishing while the "government" run Post Office is in serious trouble. With that in mind, why do think people still believe the government can provide the answers to our health care?

tOA: I don't think the majority of the American people believe that the government can run health care correctly. I mean, just look at the cash for clunkers program - they cannot even run that correctly and the people are taking full notice of that. The people that believe the government can run health care are the ones who have no concept of reality. They believe in a concept called the "public good," and that others should pay for their health insurance. What it boils down to is laziness and a mentality of "what can someone else do for me?" Just plain sad if you ask me.

tLP: Another great answer. Do you have political debates with your friends? If so, how would you describe them?

tOA: Yes, but you have to keep in mind that most of my friends are ignorant college students who voted for Obama. I am sure you can imagine the debates that we have.

Jordan: "What do you think about care?"

Friend: "I wish they could implement a system that could be free for everyone."

tLP: We see that you are a blogger, what is the name of your blog and what do you write about? Why did you decide to start writing? Are there certain topics you specifically concentrate on?

tOA: My blog is called "The Obamination of America." It is located at www.obaminationblog.blogspot.com, and discusses topics that have to do with Obama, Congress, the media, and usually just whatever I can think of. I started writing last August when the 2008 Presidential race was well under way. I felt like I could make some sort of a difference in my area and so I just started writing.

tLP: What message, if any, do you try to convey to your readers?

tOA: I mainly just try to convey conservative values that are consistent with what the Founding Fathers wanted.

tLP: How is your blog received? What are some of the comments you receive? Do you stay in contact with other bloggers?

tOA: My blog is slowly gaining popularity and usually averages 40 hits a day. The comments I receive are probably 90% positive. I have a little trouble with my grammar so every once in a while that gives me some trouble, but people generally enjoy reading my posts. Lately I have stayed in contact with my blogger friends, especially ones from blogcatalog.com. Having a solid friend base is crucial to having a great blog.

tLP: Where do you see your blog going from here?

tOA: I see my blog gaining popularity and eventually leveling off to around 100 visitors a day. I am a little skeptical at the moment, but I just recently bought some advertising to help things out. I am hoping for the best at this point in time.

tLP: I understand that you joined a Tea Party recently, tell us about it and why you joined the Tea Party movement.

tOA: The Tea Part movement is located in Roanoke, Virginia, and is basically just getting organized. This was my first meeting so I don't have much to talk about, but we had someone explain the objectives for the tea party and divided us into teams. I joined the organization and funds committee and I am going to probably be assigned with writing blog entries for the site, and promoting the tea party at my university.

I would like to reiterate my thanks to Jordan and The Obamination of America blog for agreeing to do this interview. I have known Jordan for only a little while, initially meeting him over at blogcatalog's forums. He is a passionate individual who cares deeply about liberty and our Republic, and this is plainly expressed within this interview.

As a side note, on Jordan's site you will observe an Akt Now! campaign logo. His campaign pertains to Citizens Against Cap and Trade and is explicated as such;

"All of those in favor of keeping your energy costs the way they are and not raising them as much as 3000 dollars say I!!!! With your support and numbers we will send a statement to Senator Webb and Senator Warner in the state of Virginia to not vote for Cap and Trade. Even if you don't live in Virginia this is a very important issue that should receive your support so PLEASE sign the petition. A little bit of activism can go a long way!!! Thanks."

I would like to urge you to sign this petition while you are reading some of his posts, thank you very much.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,The Conservative Hideout2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, readsome articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Monday, August 24, 2009

I thought about creating some clever articulation concerning the proceeding visual. I cannot, and any measure to do so would only aggravate this financial tragedy. I only ask that you look at it, and then question whether our government looks out for "We the People." Question if the amount given to Brazil for offshore drilling, $2 billion, is a sound investment for the United States. If by some unknown factor you are not moved by this; or perhaps you are of the opinion the government can still fix our economic disaster with its present course - I say to you that you are intellectually dead.

The graph below is a blank representation of the U.S. Debt clock, click on it and it will take you to the figures in real time.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,The Conservative Hideout2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, readsome articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

We have heard the words social justice thrown around in political conversations, but specificity is missing regarding its context. Social justice, which has been hijacked by socialists, can be defined as; a philosophical concept/cause which promulgates fair and equitable treatment within a societal construct. The corollary of impartial redistribution of advantages and disadvantages acts as the impulsion which drives the mechanisms of this collectivist egality. In addition, determinants that act as auxiliaries must also be considered because they are essential in instituting a "just" society - I will name a few.

Equality of condition: The principle of equality of condition endeavors to eliminate economic disparities, which, as socialists claim, creates an imbalance in material conditions on an interindividual level. The principal methodology employed is the “equalization of income,” and to ensure equitable distribution progressive taxation, a subset of this system, is instituted to increase the tax rate as the taxable amount increases. In a simpler explication, those individuals with a higher percentage of income are deemed to have more disposable income, therefore their tax percentage is higher than those individuals in lower income brackets. In economics this rationale is referred to vertical equity.

Another rendition of the principle of equality of condition can be found in, Thomas Christiano's – An Argument for Equality. It is a differing opinion to be sure, and I must state that the entirety of the piece is intellectually incomplete, if not turgid with his formulaic concepts.

The Principle of Equality of Condition

"The principle of equality of condition is itself a first order principle. It says that how much a person ought to receive of some important good can only be ascertained relative to what others can receive."

"As I understand equality of condition, it is a principle of justice. It states that individual persons have rights to equal shares in some fundamental substantial good. This principle is a comparative principle of justice: it makes the share that each person has a right to a comparative function of what others have rights to."

“.... a descriptive term for an approach intended to provide a certain social environment in which people are not excluded from the activities of society, such as education, employment, or health care, on the basis of immutable traits. Equal opportunity practices include measures taken by organizations to ensure fairness in the employment process. A basic definition of equality is the idea of equal treatment and respect.”

Relative deprivation: “Relative deprivation is a situation in which a person is deprived of something which they think they are entitled to, while another person possesses it. The deprivation is relative between the two parties as a person possesses the item while the other does not. The term can be used in social sciences to describe feelings or measures of economic, political, or social deprivation that are relative rather than absolute. The concept of relative deprivation has important consequences for both behavior and attitudes in a society, including feelings of stress, political attitudes, & participation in collective action.”

One's desideration to construct a just society through theoretical contrivances will collaterally manifest liberty depriving machinations. This is not justice in its pure sense, it is the reallocation of labor and wealth by channeling it to idle, compulsory claimants. Taxation in any form is in direct violation of negative liberties, as proportional allocation almost always disallows a comparable advantage to those disproportionately carrying the tax burden.

Another question exists whether equality of condition reduces relative poverty, and under theoretical examinations it does – but its failure lies in empirical evidence. The equality of condition benefit can create an adverse disincentive within the field of work ethics. The desire to work harder to better one's position in life is stifled when entitlements are given without the requisite labor needed to obtain it. And if the principle of equality of condition was so beneficial at staving off economic disparities why is our welfare state increasing in size? Are the rich not bled enough? What will be the foreseeable damage to our gross domestic product?

Friedrich Hayek once stated;

"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time."

"Our argument will be that, though where the same must use coercion for other reasons, it should treat all people alike, the desire of making people more alike in their condition cannot be accepted in a free society as a justification for further and discriminatory coercion."

In a blogging forum a person once stated that it was high time that people of affluence were forced to pay for their crimes of stepping on "people's necks" to get their wealth. Obtuse to say the least. Any individual who predicates their position from this standpoint does so by; argumentum ad ignorantiam - arguing from ignorance. I am not advocating that we should let people drown in their own misery, what I am advocating is a shift in the methodology that we use to achieve the result. Government is not the answer, in fact, it perpetuates the inequality we are trying stop.

Arguments against free markets and supplanting it with socialism are in themselves flaccid, for a true free market system has never been realized because of governmental intrusion. Some of the greatest achievements in human history have been accomplished without government oversight, or the government acting as the agent of impetus. Human ingenuity seeks its originality within the faculty of the mind's eye. And this is an additional failure the principle of equality of condition neglects to consider, much less cultivate.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,The Conservative Hideout2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, readsome articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

I wanted to share another email that I received yesterday, it was a blog posting from Wayne Allyn Root. I must admit that I am a fan of Mr. Root, but beyond that I feel that he has some very interesting things to say, regardless of personal or political viewpoint. Tomorrow I will have a posting explicating the inefficiency and coercive aspects of Social Justice. On Monday the 24th I will have a Blogger Interview with Jordan, the author of The Obamination of America.

Obama Finally Gets It Right - Government Run Healthcare Will Be Exactly Like The Postal Service!

President Obama in a recent Town Hall meeting admitted that FedEx and UPS get it right...but it is the Postal Service that has big problems. Well I've been saying that for 20 years! Obama used that as proof as to why we should support his plan for government-run health care. Huh? His point- a very weak one- was that government cannot compete with FedEx or UPS, so we should not worry about government-run health care damaging private health insurance.

This is more proof that without a teleprompter and a gifted Kennedy-era speechwriter putting the words of Camelot in his mouth, Obama is actually a lousy speaker and debater.

A good debater might point out to Obama that the Postal Service has been failing for decades now...bleeding taxpayers out of tens of billions of dollars. And if we killed it tomorrow, it would still bleed us out of trillions more (that's with a T) in unfunded liabilities for the pensions and free lifetime healthcare of retired postal employees. Of course when the government-run Post Office fails, it just means we don’t get a letter on time. When government-run healthcare fails, it will mean long waits for medical care, rationing, and death for older Americans.

A good debater might point out how we- the taxpayers- are not on the hook for billions or trillions of dollars in losses from FedEx or UPS...or any private health insurance company for that matter. Why on earth would we want to hand 17% of the U.S. economy to government as a giant experiment that could overwhelm taxpayers with debt for decades to come? So much more debt, than just free healthcare for a measly few million government employees, that universal healthcare could very well lead to the bankruptcy and insolvency of America.

A good debater might point out that if we can't afford free lifetime healthcare benefits for just a few million federal employees, how could we afford to pay for free lifetime healthcare for all 300 million Americans?

A good debater might point out that if free lifetime healthcare for a few million government employees adds up to trillions in debt and unfunded liabilities, just adding 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants to our healthcare bill would surely break the bank. Let alone the entire 300 million population of America.

A good debater might point out that the federal government already runs Medicare and Medicaid, and they are the prime culprits in the future insolvency of America. So if free healthcare for only old people and poor people threatens to overwhelm the entire U.S. federal budget within 20 years (or sooner), can you imagine what providing health care for everyone would do to the budget?

A good debater might point out that government projections and predictions are always off by just a bit- often ten times too low. When Medicare was started, so-called government "experts" predicted it would cost $3 billion per year in 1970. Instead it cost $6.8 billion. They predicted it would cost $10 billion by 1990. Instead it cost $110 billion. So if Obama's "experts" now predict universal healthcare to cost $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion, do you think that perhaps $10 trillion to $16 trillion might be more accurate? You think government “experts” are more accurate nowadays? Really? Like “Cash for Clunkers” where we ran through $1 billion in government funding in 4 days. I predict we'll run through $1 trillion for healthcare in a couple of months (or sooner).

A good debater might point out that government fails and loses billions at everything it touches- from Amtrak, to Walter Reed Hospital (where returning wounded vets faced mold in their rooms), to Ethanol, to the wonderful planning of the Iraq War, to the management of the Hurricane Katrina rescue, to the dramatic failure of the entire U.S. public school system.

A good debater might point out that the Head of Canada’s Medical Association now says Canada’s system is sick and needs immediate changes. Or that in our own country, Massachusetts has already adopted government-run healthcare and costs have gone up, while performance has gone down. Big surprise, with government in charge.

Obama says we have no choice- "To Do Nothing is not an option." Really? My friends at the Congressional Effect Fund prove that doing nothing is always preferable to letting government do something. A study by the Congressional Effect Fund proves that for the past half century, when Congress is in session "doing something" the U.S. stock market is up 1%...while when Congress is out of session "doing nothing" the U.S. stock market is up a remarkable 17%.

There are many things we can do to improve healthcare in America- but they all start with getting government out of the way. You can find a detailed plan for improving our national healthcare system in my new book "The Conscience of a Libertarian." But the sad reality is that doing NOTHING would be far preferable to letting government get more involved in healthcare.

Now President Obama says the public option may be abandoned. But we all know what that means- a few moderate Republicans and a handful of Blue Dog Democrats will pass an equally disastrous healthcare compromise- but they’ll call it by a different name and declare victory. Facts and history proves that reducing government involvement in the system is the only way to improve healthcare. Any further government involvement by any name (“co-op” instead of “public option”) will be bad for consumers, patients and doctors…and disastrous for the U.S. economy.

Congressional Effect Study Proves That Doing Nothing is Preferable to Allowing a Government Takeover of Healthcare.

Canadian Healthcare System Falling Apart with Only 20 Million Citizens. Massachusetts Government-Run Healthcare Failing and Threatening to Bankrupt the State.

Government Involvement by Any Name- “Co Op” or “Public Option”- is Disastrous for U.S. Economy and Consumers.

Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. A detailed explanation of his plan for reducing healthcare costs and solving the healthcare crisis is found in his new book, “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts.” The book is available at Amazon.com or at bookstores across the USA. For more of Wayne's views, commentaries, or to watch his many media interviews, please visit his web site at: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,The Conservative Hideout2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, readsome articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Want to participate in a blog interview? If so, feel free to contact the Liberty Pen.

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT ON THE ISSUES

I support a Free Market economy. Plain and simple, capitalism works. When government gets involved it creates distortion, dysfunction and disaster. I support free enterprise, reduced government regulation, and tax relief for entrepreneurs and small business, as well as personal responsibility for the individual.

Followers

Subscribe To

About Me

I am just an average man who believes individual sovereignty is essential. I believe that economic freedom and political freedom are mutually inclusive. Both are necessary in preserving the liberties of the individual.